Which One?

Cason

First let me tell you that I like to shoot portraits, candids, animals, nature...pretty much anything and everything. Also, I'm new to SLRs. In my sig, you can see that I have a 28-105. I'm wanting to go longer. I've played around with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and I do like the fact that it doesn't shake much with my in-experienced hold.

After looking at reviews and sample shots, I'm still not sure what to get. As you know, the 70-200mm f/4 L is about the same price and I see that it has awesome reviews. I realize that the price is great considering it is an "L". However, I am wondering about the extra 100mm I could get with the 70-300. I've read that it could get pretty soft when it is at 300.

Does anybody have both of these lenses and favors one over the other?

Scott_Quier

I've had the 70-300 (but not the shorter L) and I have to agree with those reviews indicated the lens gets softer as you go longer. I started with this lens and sold it a short time later because I was unhappy with it.

I think you will have no problem finding folks here who will agree with the statement/recommendation: Buy as much quality in glass as you can afford while still getting the glass that meets your "length" needs.

Cason

Although the 70-200 is so much cheaper than any other L, is the quality still there compared to the other L lenses?

I guess if you want the more expensive ones, you are paying for the longer ones.

photocat

RTP wrote:

Although the 70-200 is so much cheaper than any other L, is the quality still there compared to the other L lenses?

I guess if you want the more expensive ones, you are paying for the longer ones.

You mostly get what you pay for. I do have the sigma 70-300, and I am very happy with it. I use it a lot for candid people shots, and I often use it for portraits. The steadier your hand is, the more results you will get from this lens. I have no clue about other brands... But it is one of my fav lenses, especially for the long reach I get with it... (I could not handhold a longer one though!)

cmason

I had this same dilema a few weeks ago. The best site with reviews and pictures is http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/70300s . Here they do comparisons of the 70-200f4L and the 70-300 IS.

I was sure that I was going to purchase the 70-300 IS USM, but couldnt decide. I borrowed a 100-400 lens and went around photographing the things I wanted a long lens for : kids soccer, etc. This turned out to be very very useful: I found when I got home that few of my photos were over 200mm. Equally, almost none were below 1/250th, a few were 1/125th.

In the end, I decided that I didnt really need the extra 100mm, and the IS would not be as useful. I also decided that I would really love to have the 'best" quality lens I could get, meaning the "L" (best being a mind game thing...test show these very very similar in IQ).

In this case, this is likely just about the only "L" lens I can really afford, so I may as well get it. Finally, selling an "L" is far easier, and maintains its value far better.

Red Bull

Yes, the quality is still there on the f/4 L. I have it and I absolutely love it. It gives very sharp photos.

cmason

Red Bull wrote:

Yes, the quality is still there on the f/4 L. I have it and I absolutely love it. It gives very sharp photos.

Oh another thing that tipped the balance: the L comes with the lens hood, and a case for the lens. The hood for the 70-300 IS USM is an extra $50. For the L, the case is little more than a felt bag, so it is not worth having, but the lens hood is great!

Cason

Thank you everybody for your input. It looks like I will be getting the 70-200.